Reference needed from ex employer (after dismissal)

makeyourdaddyproud

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Well it doesn't, it will make it harder as it should, why should the decent employees be on the same level as someone who's committed gross misconduct.

Also, why should the employer have to risk their business on hiring someone who is a higher risk to their business. At the end of the day this comes down to the choice of the employee, their actions are something they have a choice over unlike protected characteristics so it shouldn't get the same protection in employment.

Being sacked for gross misconduct is different to being let go in the first two years, employers are far more accepting of the latter but being dismissed for gross misconduct means the employee messed up to such an extent they were dismissed for GM so why shouldn't an employer know this when making the decision?

And you would support a system where no one gets a second chance?

The problem with references is that they are highly unregulated. I stand by my decree that an employer has too much power in the future prosperity of an employee, for years to come.

Being out of work for a couple of years involuntarily can cost the employee and his family an unfair penalty in the scheme of things.

I agree that the employer needs some assurances, but simply being let go for frivolous underperformance can easily be due to not "fitting in", in which case the system of references break down.

I also refer to the losing of ones job due to gross misconduct. This can be for a variety of reasons and not just malice on the employees part.

ValHaller

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

It should be ILLEGAL to provide or ask for references, only CRB checks.

Hmm nice idea, but CRB checks are probably no more just and accurate (in the sense of accurately recording offences actually committed as opposed to convictions) than references.